HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 56081
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5608
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ONE YEAR
RETROACTIVE MAP EXTENSION OF CARLSBAD TRACT
10 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
POINSETTIA LANE AND AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
CT 00-19 AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HDP 00-
CASE NO.: CT 00-19~1/HDP 00-10x1
WHEREAS, North Coast Calvary Chapel, a California Non-Profit
Corporation, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad
regarding property described as
The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter together with the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter both of Section
22, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base
and Meridian, together with Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract No. 91-
12, according to the Map thereof No. 13394, recorded January
24, 1997 in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of April 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” dated
April 21, 2004 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 12, 2004, and “PII”
dated March 3, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration CT 00-
19xl/HDP 00-10 xl the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5608 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOWMIL&
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5608 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: CT 00-19~1/HDP 0-10x1
The northeast comer of Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The one-year extension of an approved tentative map for the
subdivision and grading of 30.9 acres into 32 residential lots (12.13 ac.) and five open space lots
(18.77 ac.).
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
fl The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but
at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Negative
Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is
on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: May 5,2004. pursuant to Planning: - Commission Resolution No. 5608
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H0LZMTU;ER
Planning Director
43 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD PROMENADE
PROJECT LOCATION:
CASE NO: CT 00-19Xl/HDP 00-10x1
On the northeast comer of Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway,
Carlsbad, California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The one-year extension of an approved tentative map for the
subdivision and grading of 30.9 acres into 32 residential lots (12.13 ac.) and five open space lots
(18.77 ac.)
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van
Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-46 13.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 12,2004 to APRIL 12,2004
PUBLISH DATE MARCH 12,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cj&@@tjpj0@.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: CT 00-19~1/HDP 00-10x1
DATE: March 3,2004
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Promenade
2. APPLICANT: North Coast Calvary Chapel
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7188 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad CA
92009 (760) 929-0029
4. DATE EM FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 3,2004
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The one-year extension of an auproved tentative map for the
subdivision and mading of 30.9 acres into 32 residential lots (12.13 ac.) and five open space lots
(18.77 ac.) on property located on the northeast comer of Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway.
6. Previous State Clearing House Number: 2001 11 1033
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water
0 Air Quality
0 Hazards
0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct
an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the
form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that
might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. .A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a
less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect
on the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may
be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should
be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
ow
0
0
0
0
ow ow
0 0 ow
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
OB ow 0 0
0 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
5.1-15, # 2)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
g)
h)
i) 5.1-15, # 2)
0 0 0 0 0 0
ow ow ow
0 0 ow
0 0 0 0 ow OB
0 0 0 0 0 0
ow ow om
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0 0
0 o
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
1 1)
b)
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1, # 2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1 :Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11, # 2)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
VI. TFUNSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1 :Pgs
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
5.7-22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
a)
6
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
El
0
0
0 17
0
0
0
0
No Impact
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
IXI
e3 IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
OIXI
o[XI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1 :Pgs
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1
5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24, # 3)
- 5.4-24, # 3)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5, # 6)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5, # 6)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b)
5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, # 5)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4, # 5)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7, # 5)
5.12.8-7, # 5)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
No Impact
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
IXI
IXI
OIXI
om om om
OIXI om
OIXI OB OIXI UIXI
OIXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7, # 5)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7, # 5)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8, # 5)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3, # 5)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7, # 5)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic hghway? (#l:Pgs
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5,#5)
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5, #5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
10, # 5)
10, # 5)
1 - 5.8-10, # 5)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
OH
OH OH
OH
OIXI
UIXI
OH
OH
nlxl OH
OH
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
0 0 om
0 0 OH
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-7, # 5)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OH Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0 0 UIXI
0 0 ON
9 Rev. 03/28/96
XVIT. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the one-year extension of an approved tentative map for the subdivision
and grading of a 30.9-acre parcel located on the northeast comer of Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, California. Access to the site will be via a public street off Aviara
Parkway, 1187 feet north of Poinsettia Lane. Residential lots will front onto a L-shaped cul-de-
sac that parallels Aviara Pkwy and Poinsettia Lane. The developable portion of the site is located
on the southern portion and north of Poinsettia Lane. This area is relatively flat and has been
previously disturbed by agricultural uses. No duel criteria slopes are being disturbed by the
project. The northern portion of the site slopes northerly to a natural drainage finger of Encinas
Creek. Native habitat covers the northern portion (8.95 ac.) to be preserved as open space. A
San Diego Gas and Electric easement for overhead electric lines transitions the site from north to
south along the eastern side of the property. South of Poinsettia Lane is a triangular area (5.1
acres) of open space. This area contains manufactured slopes of Poinsettia Lane, a SDG&E
transmission tower, and native habitats to be preserved. A public pedestrian trail is proposed on
the existing service road within the SDG&E easement north of Poinsettia Lane. Grading for the
site involves 46,000 cu yds of cut and 46,000 cu yds of fill resulting in a balanced grading plan
with no import or export of soil material.
The project does not impact any of the sensitive habitats or species found on the site. The project
preserves the existing 7.58 ac. of Coastal Sage Scrub 1.49 ac. Southern Maritime Chaparral, .67
ac. Southern Willow Scrub, and .60 ac of wetland ruderal vegetation. Wart-stemmed Ceanothus
and Ashy spike-moss was also found on site and are not being disturbed. A protocol Coastal
California Gnatcatcher survey identified three pair of birds in areas not proposed for
development.
There have been no changes to the property conditions or other circumstances since the original
project was approved, and no potentially significant impacts have been identified which were not
identified previously. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Please refer to the
original mitigated negative declaration for a full discussion of the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures.
Previous State Clearing House Number: 2001 11 1033
11 Rev. 03/28/96
11. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential development, Poinsettia Lane at Aviara
Parkway, Carlsbad, California Leighton and Associates, dated February 13, 1998.
Biological Resources Assessment for Carlsbad Promenade, Planning Systems, dated
March 28,2001.
Carlsbad Promenade Residential Development Acoustical Study, San Diego. CAY
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. dated October 8,2000.
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Zone 20 Specific Plan Proiect,
Carlsbad. California, Brian F. Mooney Associates, dated June 1992.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Updated Report for the Proposed Carlsbad
Promenade Residential Development at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia
Lane, Cklsbad. California, Gradient Engineers, Inc. 'dated February 12,2001 1
Promenade Mitigated Negative Declaration dated February 19, 2002 and Environmental
Impact Assessment Part II and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, dated November 2,2001.
12 Rev. 03/28/96